An Easy Kung Fu style?

[I.M. Toast]

As I continue to learn more about the CMA, the more I am overwhelmed by the time people need to learn their art. Note that I am talking about just learning the curriculum, not mastering the skills. Is there such a thing as a simple CMA?
What did the poor foot soldiers learn when they were trained for combat (assuming that they were trained)? I can't imagine any training officer spending months to teach his soldiers simple combat techniques, much less years.


Just curious.

I.M.T.

[Merryprankster]

You're going to get an answer like "Simple techniques can be learned and effectively used in a matter of weeks or months, but it takes decades to develop good Kung Fu."

Enjoy :D

[Souljah]

well there is wing chun as im sure you've thought of, which was designed to be simple and practical. However this still took a year for the originator.....but im pretty sure its the simplest or quickest CMA you'll find. I could be wrong though

Hope I havent offended any WC practitioners :rolleyes:

[TkdWarrior]

remember the time when u couldn't do one technique n then just somehow P*ss off the sifu n he get cane n start hitting in every wrong move,...now u seems to get that difficult move without any probs...
if i wer to train anyone for a war then i would probably do something like this...in less than 6 months u can make assasins out of nothing...
just some thoughts..
-TkdWarrior-

[SaMantis]

Yup, pain is the fastest training method. Not necessarily the best, but in wartime expediency is the most important factor. During Vietnam & WWII drill sergeants often took "problem trainees" around the back & beat the stuffing out of 'em. There was no time to counsel them.

Foot soldiers a thousand years ago - in China or elsewhere - wouldn't have learned many basics. Most were "drafted" out of their hometowns and taught marching drill, a couple of effective moves with their assigned weapon, and maybe have a few free-for-all fights, not so much for technique but to build "fighting spirit." If the average conscript got separated from his unit on the battlefield he was in real trouble.

The English used to just conscript every able-bodied man and boy, hand out cheap swords/spears, and make them run toward the enemy in a human wave. Little to no training was provided.

[Braden]

Well... not surprisingly, this is a quite multi-layered problem/question.

First of all, it's difficult to tell whether your allusion to soldiers is purely anecdotal to the topic, or illustrative of your understanding and/or intent.

Soldiers, for a wide variety of reasons, have not and do not train 'martial arts' (by which I mean anything that non-soldiers would recognize to be remotely similar to other things agreed to be under that label, rather than a semantic abstraction of the term). Moreover, they should not, even in ideal and theoretical situations.

Regarding the first point... consider a cost-benefit analysis. With soldiers you have an extreme deficit of time, money, and aptitude. This shortage of resources makes the cost of specialized training extremely high. And, moreover, the benefit for this particular specialized training is extremelt low - melee proficiency is very low on the list of requirements for good soldiering (and even was when they killed primarily at this level). High cost, low benefit = don't do it. To elaborate on the second argument, skills of much higher utility to soldiers are the ability to cover rough ground quickly, the ability to subsist in poor living conditions, the ability to function in poor psychological state, the ability to put aside usual moral compunctions, the ability to follow orders, the ability to navigate maps, the ability to circumvent unusual natural or man-made obstructions, and the ability to act as a group. These are, and have always been, the prime attributes of a soldier; and are, and have always been, what their training will focus upon. Note that even the soldiers that have been historically considered extraordinary are those that have excelled in these areas - consider for example Roman field communication tactics. And even those renowned, seemingly, for their prowess at martial melee; upon analysis, this prowess is only an adaptation of these primary traits and not of martial prowess primarily: consider the phalanx.

The second point I made was that, even in ideal and theoretical situations, soldiers cannot benefit much from martial arts. The reason for this is that a soldier's martial melee reality is far different from that of the citizen. So even if you had unlimited time, money, and aptitude, you still should not teach your soldiers anything that is good for civilian self-defense. The needs and variables are simply too different.

Note that this also applies in converse. Any training that brings out good martial proficiency for a soldier is not likely to be well-suited to your needs. The opposite to this reasoning, however, is most popularly applied. Consider how often various people either ask if styles are "combat-proven" historically, or brag that they were.

A very similar analysis can be made regarding someone interested in immediate self-defense value, as you seem to be. The result will be the same - if all you want is to defend yourself, or if this is a very high requirement for your life right now, you should not take up a martial art (not even one like boxing; and I mean, not take one up to address these concerns, certainly you should still take one up in general).

Is there a simple CMA? What do you mean by simple? It's far too ambiguous a term to permit a reasonable answer.

[UltimateFighter]

Wing Chun is known as 'The lazy man's Kung Fu'. This is because it does not require much flexibility or hard conditioning, and the techniques are purely about neutralizing the opponents force.

To reach an adept level it will take around 3 years however, though that is not long compared to most styles.

[yenhoi]

How beautiful Braden. :p

[Souljah]

yea very slick braden man, I agree entirely.....though I didnt/couldnt read that much into it initially myself :( :(

[I.M. Toast]

In western history, the footsoldiers didn't get much in the way of training either, since they were were more expendable compared to archers or cavalry.
Yes, I had heard that Wing Chun was an easier art to learn, However, somehow I thought that some of the more "primitive" arts like White Crane might be even more simplistic. Again, I'm refering to learning curriculum, not mastery.


I.M.T

P.S. Thanks for the thourough post Braden! It was a good read.

[Braden]

What do you mean by "more simplistic...refering to learning curriculum"? What quality would indicate simplicity in this context?

[Stacey]

I'd say Wing Chun too, but did you see, Emin fumble that Chueng guy? It was pathetic on both sides. These were two masters. Wing chun is about quickness. Yes speed kills, but only if you move your waist.

For quick, your better learning basic grappling, this doesn't require that much of a base. Boxing is quick as well.

Hsing I has very few movements. 5

[norther practitioner]

I don't have a lot of time to discuss this, so more later, however, what are the thoughts of the cmas devoloped by military leaders. I agree for the most part with Braden, however, I just want to bring up the point that (I am pretty sure) systems like Eagle Claw and such were developed by generals to teach there troops.

[jungle-mania]

Is it the fight between Emin Boztepe and WIlliam Cheung? Does anyone know where I can see the clip of that fight?

In regards to the original question, I also agree Wing Chun is an easy chinese art to pick up, Hsing I is easy too, of you are not to concern about the internal form, then it will be a different story all together.

Nontheless, I think the best way to learn to fight, go around and telling people their mom wears army boots and then defend yourself the best you can. After a dozen or so fights (or bashing) you WILL learn eventually to fight back (rather crudely, but quite effective still)

[jungle-mania]

Is it the fight between Emin Boztepe and WIlliam Cheung? Does anyone know where I can see the clip of that fight?

In regards to the original question, I also agree Wing Chun is an easy chinese art to pick up, Hsing I is easy too, of you are not to concern about the internal form, then it will be a different story all together.

Nontheless, I think the best way to learn to fight, go around and telling people their mom wears army boots and then defend yourself the best you can. After a dozen or so fights (or bashing) you WILL learn eventually to fight back (rather crudely, but quite effective still):D

[SaMantis]

It's true that martial arts were taught to troops but these were usually permanent units, like imperial guards and regional armies which were maintained constantly. These units would have benefitted the most from standardized martial arts training in peacetime.

A comparison is today's elite military units like SEALs, Rangers, etc. Their level of operations during peacetime varies depending on their defined mission, but each unit trains for combat scenarios on a regular basis.

Noncombat units train to provide support and defend themselves. You'll find very little martial arts training beyond the individual soldier's initiative (taking a class off the base, for example). So in a way, modern armies' training methods and priorities haven't changed much. They're just better at getting beans & bullets to the front lines.

[Xebsball]

If one is learning CMA correctly there is no such discussion about taking years to be able to fight or taking years to be able to defend yourself. The "taiji takes 20 years to fight" is bullsh.it
With correct training you wont be "blind" or "lost" in a fight regardless of if you have 10 months or 10 years of training. Of course the more you train the better you get, though.
And if you want to be real good you must expect your training to be hard. Even styles that would be considered "simple" might need a great degree of focusing on refinement - wich is not easy at all.

[mantis108]

"An Easy Kung Fu style"? Isn't that an oxymoron? ;)

Mantis108

[TaoBoy]

That's possible the best written response I've ever read here. And I really thought there would be few meaningful posts on this thread.

Cheers!

[KC Elbows]

It helps that Braden has honed that response over years of that question coming up. It's proof that Braden nitpicks his own thinking as much as he does ours.:D

[ZIM]

:) Its interesting that you're asking for easy in relation to time spent learning rather than to amount of techniques/forms/whatevcer. Coz this is like what kung fu is, learning a few things well, not a thousand things poorly.

So to the question: Wing chun was mentioned- at its best n simplest vanilla type, it is no more than a welltimed and structured whole body punch. bot i don't think you'd find it on a battlefield. Takes years to get to that point tho.

Anyway most cmas are like that- one thing is the crowning achievement and it always looks like a 5 year old could do it. "it takes a long time to become young"- picasso. LOL

The simplest/EZ2do martial teaching is not CMA, i think, but is Gatka. Good articles might be found on the net describing it- in essence, it's just based on the simple hit with a stick/sword. Its all based on sikh religion, so its very very hard to find.

For those with internalist backgrounds, it goes that way: the 'simple' hit is honed to perfection as a figure eight 'energetic' pattern, then used large frame, small frame, etc. Until the energetic pattern is held at all times.

They also teach complex triangular footworks specifically geared for battlefields. Which-surprise! go well/contrast well with bagua n wing chun, etc etc IMHO.

I stopped being a slug! wonders never cease... (http://ejmas.com/jnc/jncart_singh_1001.htm)

Anyhow maybe this helps for the curious.

[rubthebuddha]

mantis -- i'm glad someone caught the contradiction.

as far as an easy style, defending yourself should never be easy, because defense implies difficulty. if there's no real threat, then what's to defend against?

if a six-year-old haves at you, then there's little threat other than a lucky (or unlucky) shot to the package. if Joe McGrowthhormone decides that he wants to take your head off, you train hard to be able to deal with the difficulty. you have to work hard in order to have good success dealing with something that's hard. period.

[ZIM]

Yeah, dambit!!! LOL

I dont know if he meant EZ in tha sense of 'no effort' though. Maybe 'quicker to pick up on'?

[Braden]

There might be a reasonable heritage from what we now call eagle claw back to what general Yueh Fei taught his troops, but this does not mean the two are one and the same. This military ancestor to eagle claw, if indeed it exists, likely took the form of a dozen or so techniques demonstrated then applied with force against training dummies - the kind of material that can be imparted in hours, not months or years. This is consistent with the approach of today's "elite" army units; an idea which can be verified by examining their training manuals, which have been posted to these forums and are available online.

There are a few examples of sophisticted martial arts training for the military that are very interesting historically and tactically, as well as being inspiring solutions to the problems outlined here. The first to come to mind is the English treatment of the Welsh longbow. This was a skill that was made, by law, to be a national pass-time/sport. This enabled the bulk drafting, with minimal training, of a highly skilled (albeit also highly specialized) militia army.

[Stacey]

probably like todays chinese military. Some throws, a few twist punches.

I'm guessing there was more stancework which is translated into lances, swords, etc.

[Serpent]

Simple techniques can be learned and effectively used in a matter of weeks or months, but it takes decades to develop good Kung Fu.

;) :D

[rubthebuddha]

i'm still sticking with serpent(or) on this.

[I.M. Toast]

Thanks for some interesting responses.

It would seem that there are two general misunderstandings about my question. First, some think that I am looking for an easy CMA for myself. Nope. Not the case. It's just an academic question.
Second, when I say easy I don't mean technically. I mean easy in simplistic. I would consider Boxing to be easy in this manner. There are only so many "moves" in Boxing (jab, uppercut, cross, etc.). However, putting them all together in an efficient manner takes a lot of work.
If I were given six weeks to train troops in HTH, I might be able to give them three weeks boxing, three weeks wrestling, and then shove them out the door. They would neither box or wrestle well. But they probably could box and wrestle.
Have I oversimplified the matter?

[ZIM]

Put that way i don't know if you're speaking of an art but of an effective training regimen. For that there are many.

The flip side of the question is "how many moves are required to convey the true essence of any true Art?" And IMHO it may be very few, but it would be impossible to truly understand those movements without long expert instruction.

A case in point is 'simplified' tai chi- without in-depth knowledge you can really fool yourself, doing no more than a pretty dance. You can also do many qiqong sets but never really get the results from it as advertised- but if you really get it, you only really NEED one set.
Another case in point: Lohan quan [i think] started from the original 18 palms/postures of da mo....is that the essence? Could it be extrapolated from *just* that Teaching? If you're really gifted and good.....?

In essence, any technique just means "how to hit the other guy". In essence any Art just means "how to control the fight". There's a difference there. ;)

My 2 centimes...